When news broke late last week that the University of Tennessee had its eyes on Duke’s own David Cutcliffe, the result could have been all too familiar for even the most casual observers of college football.
Here’s the pattern: Head Mercenary Football Coach at School A jumps at a lucrative offer to take over School B’s program. With School A’s recruits now wavering just weeks in advance of signing, other programs sweep in like vultures to pick off the best from their recruiting class, and School A is forced to dip lower into the college football food chain to find a replacement—thus sparking the same effect further down the line.
Duke fans were spared a nauseating ride on this coaching tilt-a-whirl when Cutfcliffe announced that he would remain at Duke and turn down the Tennessee position. In announcing his decision, Cutcliffe cited his strong affinity for the University as well as fierce loyalty to keeping together his assistant coaching staff as the decisive factors in his choice. But throughout Cutcliffe’s interview, it became clear that he also had little desire to abet the growing practice of disruptive college coaching transitions.
Noting that he had just witnessed three parents drop off their sons at Duke as mid-season enrollees, Cutcliffe knew that a move to Tennessee would amount to a betrayal of trust that he couldn’t bear to stomach.
“We’ve got guys that have dropped any other recruiting from any other institution long ago How fair is that? I felt a little dirty even thinking about it.”
Cutcliffe only had to look a few hundred miles down I-40 to get an idea of the havoc his departure would wreak on Duke’s program. Before the USC jet had even picked up new coach Lane Kiffin, Tennessee’s coachless recruits quickly looked into Plan B. Further, many of those prep stars were lured to commit to the Trojans under questionable circumstances. But at least those players had the flexibility to consider other programs.
Players already enrolled at UT were effectively trapped, forced to either stay and prove themselves once more to a new coaching staff or sit out a year if they chose to transfer. Clearly, the biggest losers are the UT players who made commitments to a coach who ultimately showed nary a shred of commitment to them.
Although he wouldn’t address Kiffin’s rocky departure from Rocky Top in specifics, Cutcliffe came out strongly against the prevailing practice in his profession. Laying out a paradigm that valued both adherence to official, on-the-books bylaws and intense respect of more discrete ethical standards, Cutcliffe’s statements and actions sent a message that has often gone unheeded at other institutions.
“There are violations and there are ethics,” Cutcliffe said. “I don’t think either one of them should be crossed, particularly when you have a coaching transition.”
With Kiffin just the latest in a long line of coaches to make quick, tumultuous jumps away from their college programs (look up Petrino, Bobby and Carroll, Pete for two fresh examples), it’s clear that the same moral and ethical fiber embodied in Cutcliffe’s philosophy is missing from most of his coaching brethren. As a result, the ethical standards Cutcliffe touched upon are insufficient as a standalone deterrent to irresponsible behavior by departing coaches.
With coaching “tourism” endemic to college basketball as well, the NCAA needs to respond strongly with a new preventative framework. A great starting response would center around new rules that outlaw disruptive coaching changes in the midst of critical recruiting windows.
Although it’s an unlikely source, European soccer provides a template the NCAA could follow. By establishing a “transfer window” for coaches to switch teams immediately after bowl season or the NCAA tournament—as opposed to midseason or mere weeks before signing day—a new layer of predictability can be added to a coaching transition.
The system could work this way: After the season has been completed, schools have a set period of time—maybe the month of January—to court and hire a head coach away from another school. Teams that don’t abide by the transfer rules and poach a coach away early should be subject to harsh penalties. By coupling these measures with a change in the recruiting calendar that pushes back National Signing Day to provide sufficient space for teams to finalize coaching changes before the home stretch of the recruiting season, the disruptive effects of a coaching transition can be more effectively mitigated.
The plight of current players left in the lurch during a coaching change must also be addressed. Players already enrolled who wish to transfer must be given greater flexibility to do so without penalty of a year on the sidelines.
These solutions certainly won’t get much support from coaches, who are in no hurry to have an additional restraint placed on their career flexibility. But based on his recent actions, Cutcliffe is one of the few in his profession to buck that trend, just as he did when he chose to stay.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.